Search

Background: Selective outcome reporting is a significant methodological concern. Comparisons between the outcomes reported in clinical trial registrations and those later published allow investigators to understand the extent of selection bias among trialists. We examined the possibility of selective outcome reporting in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in neurology journals. Methods: We searched PubMed for randomized controlled trials from Jan 1, 2010 –Dec 31, 2015 published in the top 3 impact factor neurology journals. These articles were screened according to specific inclusion criteria. Each author individually extracted data from trials following a standardized protocol. A second author verified each extracted element and discrepancies were resolved. Consistency between registered and published outcomes was evaluated and correlations between discrepancies and funding, journal, and temporal trends were examined. Results: 180 trials were included for analysis. 10 (6%) primary outcomes were demoted, 38 (21%) primary outcomes were omitted from the publication, and 61 (34%) unregistered primary outcomes were added to the published report. There were 18 (10%) cases of secondary outcomes being upgraded to primary outcomes in the publication, and there were 53 (29%) changes in timing of assessment. Of 82 (46%) major discrepancies with reported p-values, 54 (66.0%) favored publication of statistically significant results. Conclusion: Across trials, we found 180 major discrepancies. 66% of major discrepancies with a reported p-value (n = 82) favored statistically significant results. These results suggest a need within neurology to provide more consistent and timely registration of outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Acute traumatic coagulopathy has been associated with shock and tissue injury, and may be mediated via activation of the protein C pathway. Patients with acute traumatic coagulopathy have prolonged PT and PTT, and decreased activity of factors V and VIII; they are also hypocoagulable by thromboelastometry (ROTEM) and other viscoelastic assays. To test the etiology of this phenomenon, we hypothesized that such coagulopathy could be induced in vitro in healthy human blood with the addition of activated protein C (aPC). Methods: Whole blood was collected from 20 healthy human subjects, and was “spiked” with increasing concentrations of purified human aPC (control, 75, 300, 2000 ng/mL). PT/PTT, factor activity assays, and ROTEM were performed on each sample. Mixed effect regression modeling was performed to assess the association of aPC concentration with PT/PTT, factor activity, and ROTEM parameters. Results: In all subjects, increasing concentrations of aPC produced ROTEM tracings consistent with traumatic coagulopathy. ROTEM EXTEM parameters differed significantly by aPC concentration, with stepwise prolongation of clotting time (CT) and clot formation time (CFT), decreased alpha angle (α), impaired early clot formation (a10 and a20), and reduced maximum clot firmness (MCF). PT and PTT were significantly prolonged at higher aPC concentrations, with corresponding significant decreases in factor V and VIII activity. Conclusion: A phenotype of acute traumatic coagulopathy can be induced in healthy blood by the in vitro addition of aPC alone, as evidenced by viscoelastic measures and confirmed by conventional coagulation assays and factor activity. This may lend further mechanistic insight to the etiology of coagulation abnormalities in trauma, supporting the central role of the protein C pathway. Our findings also represent a model for future investigations in the diagnosis and treatment of acute traumatic coagulopathy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Recent evidence suggests a lack of standardization of shoulder arthroplasty outcomes. This issue is a limiting factor in systematic reviews. Core outcome set (COS) methodology could address this problem by delineating a minimum set of outcomes for measurement in all shoulder arthroplasty trials. Methods: A ClinicalTrials.gov search yielded 114 results. Eligible trials were coded on the following characteristics: study status, study type, arthroplasty type, sample size, measured outcomes, outcome measurement device, specific metric of measurement, method of aggregation, outcome classification, and adverse events. Results: Sixty-six trials underwent data abstraction and data synthesis. Following abstraction, 383 shoulder arthroplasty outcomes were organized into 11 outcome domains. The most commonly reported outcomes were shoulder outcome score (n = 58), pain (n = 33), and quality of life (n = 15). The most common measurement devices were the Constant-Murley Shoulder Outcome Score (n = 38) and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Score (n = 33). Temporal patterns of outcome use was also found. Conclusion: Our study suggests the need for greater standardization of outcomes and instruments. The lack of consistency across trials indicates that developing a core outcome set for shoulder arthroplasty trials would be worthwhile. Such standardization would allow for more effective comparison across studies in systematic reviews, while at the same time consider important outcomes that may be underrepresented otherwise. This review of outcomes provides an evidence-based foundation for the development of a COS for shoulder arthroplasty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]